- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2520 WP No. 2479 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2479 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE DIRECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI INSTITUTE OF HIGHER MEDICAL SCIENCES, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI K VENKATESH, S/O SRI B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, C/O SRI SOMANNA, KENCHAREDDY LAYOUT, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPI KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2018, PASSED BY THE SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BAGNALORE IN ID NO.63/2014, ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2520 WP No. 2479 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'Code'). The application dated 05.10.2018 at I.A. No.4 is filed in I.D. No.63/2014 when the case was listed for evidence of second party. The respondent in this petition who is a first party before the Labour Court, opposed the said application on the premise that application for amendment after the commencement of the trial is impermissible in view of amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the power of the Court to permit amendment after the commencement of the trial is not - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2520 WP No. 2479 of 2019 curtailed even after the amendment of Code to Order VI Rule 17. He would further contend that the amendment sought is only in the nature of alternative prayer and no prejudice would be caused in case the amendment is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that the application is belated and is impermissible and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code does not enable the party to move an application for amendment after the commencement of the trial. It is his contention that valid reason is assigned by the Labour Court to dismiss the application. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. No doubt the Code is amended in 2002 and consequently, Order VI Rule 17 is also amended. The power of the Court to permit the amendment after the commencement of the trial is curtailed to some extent. But, it is not all together taken away. It is also relevant to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2520 WP No. 2479 of 2019 note that the amendment which is sought by the petitioner herein (the second party before the Labour Court) is in the nature of an alternative prayer. 7. This Court is of the view that in case the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the first party to the proceeding before the Labour Court who is the respondent before this Court. 8. However, what is required to be noticed is there is a considerable delay on the part of the present petitioner to move the application for amendment. For this reason, the first party is put to inconvenience and the proceeding is delayed and the same has to be compensated by imposing a cost of Rs.3,000/-. The cost shall be paid before the Labour Court on the next date fixed before the Labour Court. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) Impugned order is set-aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2520 WP No. 2479 of 2019 iii) Consequently, application seeking amendment is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. iv) The respondent herein is permitted to file rejoinder, if advised. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77